Groups ask Supreme Court to legalize dirty words on TV

The Supreme Court has allowed censorship of broadcasting on the grounds that …

An ideologically diverse coalition of public interest groups has submitted an amicus brief urging the United States Supreme Court to extend full First Amendment protection to broadcast media. The Federal Communications Commission has traditionally regulated the transmission of "indecent" speech and images on radio and television broadcasts. But several liberal and libertarian groups are urging the Supreme Court to strike down these regulations, arguing that technological changes have made the original constitutional justification for these regulations obsolete.

The FCC's power to regulate the content of radio and television broadcasts rests on a 1978 Supreme Court decision. Comedian George Carlin had a famous monologue about the "seven words you can never say on television." When a radio station owned by the Pacifica Foundation broadcast the program, it was fined. And in a 1978 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the fine.

The high court offered two reasons for curtailing the First Amendment protections afforded to broadcast media. First, they were "uniquely pervasive." In the 1970s, broadcast television was the only source of video content for most families. Second, broadcast media were "uniquely accessible to children," available at the flip of a switch. Hence, the government was allowed to impose regulations on broadcast media that would never have withstood constitutional scrutiny if applied to other media such as newspapers or books.

Unconstitutionally vague

The Pacifica court encouraged the FCC to use restraint in enforcing its rules against indecency. At first, the FCC limited its enforcement efforts to the seven words in the Carlin monologue. Later, the agency broadened its enforcement efforts beyond those seven words, but they continued to look the other way when stations broadcast the occasional "fleeting" expletive.

In 2004, however, the FCC adopted a more hard-line posture, holding that even a single, unscripted instance of profanity (such as Bono's use of the F-word during a 2003 broadcast of the Golden Globes) could be a punishable offense. The major television networks challenged the new rules in court, arguing that they were so vague that it was impossible to tell what was allowed.

Several CBS affiliates declined to air the Peabody Award-winning “9/11” documentary, which contains real audio footage - including occasional expletives—of firefighters in the World Trade Center on September 11th. Although the documentary had previously aired twice without complaint, following the Golden Globes Order affiliates could no longer be sure whether the expletives contained in the documentary could be found indecent. In yet another example, a radio station cancelled a planned reading of Tom Wolfe’s novel I Am Charlotte Simmons, based on a single complaint it received about the “adult” language in the book, because the station feared FCC action.

The end of broadcast censorship

The Second Circuit's decision would allow the FCC to revise its rules (perhaps returning to only regulating the "seven dirty words") and resume broadcast censorship. But a coalition of public interest groups last week filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to go beyond the Second Circuit's position and declare broadcast censorship unconstitutional altogether.

The groups point out that the high court's 1978 reasoning no longer applies to modern television. Whereas broadcast television was once the only source of video content in most households, families now have a wide variety of alternatives, including cable and satellite television, DVD players, and online streaming options. Today, only a small fraction of households—between 8 and 15 percent, according to studies cited in the brief—rely exclusively on broadcast television for home entertainment. Broadcast television is no longer "pervasive."

Nor is it "uniquely accessible to children." The introduction of the V-chip in the 1990s increased parents' control over the television content their children watch. And as Adam Thierer has demonstrated, that was just the beginning. The proliferation of alternative sources of content has made it feasible for parents to eschew broadcast television altogether in favor of DVD players, cable television, online games and videos, and the like. And many of these media offer robust parental controls of their own.

Since neither of the traditional rationales for broadcast censorship apply in the modern world, the groups argue that the courts should reconsider their original justification for allowing the FCC to regulate broadcasting content. Indeed, the Second Circuit itself hinted that it would have liked to reach that result, but didn't do so because it was bound by the Supreme Court's Pacifica decision. The Supreme Court itself, of course, has the option to overturn that decision and give broadcasting the same robust First Amendment protections that the courts have given to most other media.

The brief was signed by the Cato Institute, the Center for Democracy and Technology, Public Knowledge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and TechFreedom.

Disclosure: I'm an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, an unpaid position. I was not involved in the preparation of this amicus brief.

181 Reader Comments

In comedy, sure, swearing can be a crutch. Brian Regan and Bill Cosby can be, and are, funnier than many- if not most- comedians working blue. But for realistic portrayals of life, especially the dramatic parts of life, a PG-ification generally leads to a poorer telling of the story. There are many reasons why The Wire is considered the best crime drama, and the fact that the language is not censored is certainly one of them. For many genres, namely police/crime, war, and certain historical pieces, censorship generally lessens the telling of the story chiefly because it does not portray it realistically.

Just another example of contempt for the commons. The airwaves are public, provided and paid for with everyone's tax dollars. Generally keeping them PG so that, you know, people BESIDES adults can enjoy them, isn't too much to ask.

Yes it is, your tax dollars don't give you veto power over the first amendment speech of other people.

Um, I think you should revisit your understanding of the word "public". If you want your media consumption to be free of constraints placed on it by the public, then you need to get it from a private source.

I think you should revisit common fucken sense. We see blood gore and guts on tv, but swearing is the issue? Swearing isnt an issue unless you are a fucken retard. Its only retards who fucken complain about swearing.

And you are wrong; arbitrary rules on what can and cannot be broadcasts ARE TOO MUCH TO ASK. The FCC rules are VAGUE, so one doesnt know what they can and cannot say on the radio or broadcast on TV. Patently offensive/community standards? I live in a world where children are raped getting water for their families, where preists and football coaches rape young boys, where governments sanction torture, and where pretty much every fucken adult has sex and swears. I am patently offended by the fucken REAL EVENTS that happen in the world every day. Not the language used, but the actual events.

Dont want you children to hear 'dirty words?' well mother fucker we have the V-chip. You can also just, you know, monitor wft they consume and turn the radio off, or switch it to something child safe.

I want to be able to listen to music without it being censored. I dont want beeps in my pink floyd, my nwa, steve miller band, etc. Your kids? guess what, they are NOT my concern.

Here, try this, create a system that allows you to define what is and is not suitable for children... No one else has been able to do this, but someone on a high horse like yours shouldnt have a problem, right?

I have never understood the reaction of some people to profanity. They are just words. The meaning behind them is what actually matters, and someone saying "damn" on TV doesn't mean the situation is any different than if they said "shit" or "fuck". Everyone has situations where they make an angry or surprised exclamation, so why exclude a whole category of words?

It's a visceral reaction, not a rational one. It's because of conditioning when we were young. We now have a conditioned response (much like Pavlov's dogs) that makes us physically uncomfortable when we hear them. This could be from washing someone's mouth with soap, some other corporal punishment, or just emotional manipulation. My grandmother will physically jump when you swear around her. I don't mind hearing swear words but my mouth burns a little if I swear myself.

Parents shouldn't expect the government to censor *anything* just because the parents themselves are too lazy to actually be parents and tell their children they can't watch something.

Also, by the time they are in grade 5..the kids have heard ever curse word under the sun in the school yard or in the general public - nothing is new to them. Censoring those words on TV seems a waste of time.

If parents don't want their kids to see some of these shows - simply don't allow them to.

Amazing and pathetic that some people go ballistic when they hear words their school-age children hear hundreds of times a day. It's OK for kids to watch disgusting soft porn masquerading as music videos, but heaven forbid the word "b*stard" should be heard in our living room! Ridiculous!

And I will immediately stop watching any show that starts using obscenities. I don't enjoy hearing them on TV shows, and I don't use them in everyday life, because they are not necessary. They are a perfect example of crude and ignorant behavior, although I am sure several people will immediately respond violently to me justifying their right to act like crude and ignorant morons. Go for it. I don't, and won't, have any respect for you, so I won't demean myself by responding to you.

Like many others have said, what you see on TV today in terms of violence and gore exceeds that of most original horror movies. Sporting events don't require much skill in lip reading either. TV just isn't a source of wholesome content, and to feel it is a safe place to plop your kid and walk away, well that's mighty trusting.

The Hollywood machine keeps on chugging, whether it's the first female kiss of LA Law to the first ass-crack or side-boob of NYPD Blue, the content will always continue to push the limits. Eventually, we may have a Running Man style reality show, and a porn...er, "Adult Art" channel OTA.

My parents rarely cursed, but the kids at school did. What I learned was that people have a choice to make on how to speak and how to act, and self-control goes a long way.

And I will immediately stop watching any show that starts using obscenities. I don't enjoy hearing them on TV shows, and I don't use them in everyday life, because they are not necessary. They are a perfect example of crude and ignorant behavior, although I am sure several people will immediately respond violently to me justifying their right to act like crude and ignorant morons. Go for it. I don't, and won't, have any respect for you, so I won't demean myself by responding to you.

I agree with this sentiment. Such words are a distraction and really just suggest that one doesn't know how to express themselves--they are placeholders for thought.

We agree as a society to protect our children from all kinds of things, but don't think that being insensitive and disgusting to others is one of those things. What does that say about us as a society? About our priorities?

There are plenty of ways to get any content you like--let that suffice, instead of defaulting to all offensive all the time.

Right.

I love these straw men. Well, that means we'll get that type of content 24 hours a day 7 days a week. :|

I'm sure Sesame Street will suddenly use, "C is for cunt". Uh huh. Mr Rogers House of Whores is up next. Let's not forget Letter Fucking People. I'm ever so sure. It's not like broadcasters have voluntarily chosen only to air certain content in certain time slots. Oh, wait.

Maybe, instead of playing the morality police like prudy prudy two shoes. You should worry about yourself and use the myriad of options to censor your viewing, including the off-button on your precious TV, and allow that to suffice.

Quote:

TV just isn't a source of wholesome content, and to feel it is a safe place to plop your kid and walk away, well that's mighty trusting.

The fact that the only halfway-decent TV shows anymore all reside on the premium channels like Showtime says a lot.

I really don't see how swearing factors into this at all. While there are certainly exceptions, swearing is generally a comedic crutch. If you're actually talented, you probably don't need it to be funny.

First amendment concerns aside, frankly, it's sad that people are so fired up about this. Look, I know it's super cool when you're a teenager or in college, but swearing makes you look low class. Period. Every once in a while when you "hit your thumb with a hammer", sure, but other than that, you're just making yourself look bad. Immersing yourself in content that is full of it will simply make you more likely to engage in a bad habit.

Yes, if you are talented, you don't need to swear to be funny. If you are really good at certain types of physical comedy, you can be funny without even talking. That doesn't mean, however, that being able to swear doesn't allow you to be funnier. For example, George Carlin and Richard Pryor are two very funny men. They can be funny in contexts without swearing, but their A-grade material was 'filthy.' I'm a bit curious as to who you think has a clean act and is on the same level of funny.

The moment you threw Richard Pryor in there, you basically ruined any chances of victory for someone is as funny while remaining vulgarity-free. The closest I can think of would be Sinbad. That's pathetic, right?

Sesame Red Street; where Elmo rolls up with a gold tooth, a purple felt cap with a peacock feather, a lead gauntlet on his right hand, and a rosewood cane capped with platinum on both ends in his left.

Just another example of contempt for the commons. The airwaves are public, provided and paid for with everyone's tax dollars. Generally keeping them PG so that, you know, people BESIDES adults can enjoy them, isn't too much to ask.

Exactly. There are plenty of outlets for people who want filthy speech, graphic violence, or graphic sex, Broadcast television and radio have always been a place where kids can listen or watch without a high probability of being exposed to things their parents wouldn't want.

The First Amendment doesn't cover indecency, and it never has. The intent of the First Amendment was to prevent the government from stifling political speech that disagreed with the powers that be, not to allow you to see boobies and say bad words where and whenever you feel like. (Case in point: it's not protected "free speech" to expose yourself on the street.)

Yes, kids learn curse words whether you want them to or not. I knew all of the dirty words before I hit junior high school, but I didn't exactly use them on a daily basis (and I still don't), mostly because I was raised in a home where that language was considered unacceptable. Part of that environment was choosing the movies and televisions shows we watched.

If network TV becomes completely uncensored, then it becomes a lot harder to find content that I can watch with my kid, or content that I can even watch with my kid in the room.

If you want <i>The Sopranos</i> level of cursing and violence, then you have every right to pay for HBO, but those of us who don't like cursing and graphic content should be able to get that as well. The day the broadcast censorship wall falls, that becomes much, much more difficult.

Lets face it, some people don't like words regarding religion, science, pollution, sex, and so on. What they usually mean is they don't approve of the activity itself, and think it is fine to attack the words as well. If we don't talk about, it doesn't exist!

Eventually they have to pull their heads out of the sand, lest they suffocate on self imposed ignorance, or some fucktard kicks them is their ever loving arses (and rightly so).

Exactly. There are plenty of outlets for people who want filthy speech, graphic violence, or graphic sex, Broadcast television and radio have always been a place where kids can listen or watch without a high probability of being exposed to things their parents wouldn't want.

What parents don't want kids exposed to varies greatly from parent to parent, and claims that it is 'always' are just unfounded, given the existence of safe harbors. I went to school with someone whose parents didn't let them watch Captain Planet because it espoused a 'new age' philosophy that 'the power is yours.' No fucking joke.

Quote:

The First Amendment doesn't cover indecency, and it never has. The intent of the First Amendment was to prevent the government from stifling political speech that disagreed with the powers that be, not to allow you to see boobies and say bad words where and whenever you feel like. (Case in point: it's not protected "free speech" to expose yourself on the street.)

The First Amendment protects pornography that depicts people actually fucking, and it is certainly not limited to political speech.

Quote:

Yes, kids learn curse words whether you want them to or not. I knew all of the dirty words before I hit junior high school, but I didn't exactly use them on a daily basis (and I still don't), mostly because I was raised in a home where that language was considered unacceptable. Part of that environment was choosing the movies and televisions shows we watched.

If network TV becomes completely uncensored, then it becomes a lot harder to find content that I can watch with my kid, or content that I can even watch with my kid in the room.

If you want <i>The Sopranos</i> level of cursing and violence, then you have every right to pay for HBO, but those of us who don't like cursing and graphic content should be able to get that as well. The day the broadcast censorship wall falls, that becomes much, much more difficult.

Why shouldn't the burden be upon you, the one who wishes to not have your children be exposed to something you find questionable? If you want to pay for a channel that guarantees itself to be squeaky clean, that's your right. Such a channel could actually take a smarter policy than removing arbitrary words and actually not touch on content that you might find objectionable.

The First Amendment doesn't cover indecency, and it never has. The intent of the First Amendment was to prevent the government from stifling political speech that disagreed with the powers that be, not to allow you to see boobies and say bad words where and whenever you feel like. (Case in point: it's not protected "free speech" to expose yourself on the street.)

If you want <i>The Sopranos</i> level of cursing and violence, then you have every right to pay for HBO, but those of us who don't like cursing and graphic content should be able to get that as well. The day the broadcast censorship wall falls, that becomes much, much more difficult.

Oh, boo-hoo. I love the double standard. I should have to pay for HBO because I don't want some life sucking spawn to raise. Meanwhile you should be entitled to free content because you do? Suck it up and pay for basic cable for Nickelodeon, or premium cable for Showtime and HBO family channels. How do you like that suggestion?

The FCC is just a dirty and backwards thinking organization with no grasp on reality.

On this topic, I agree that the FCC policy is backwards and full of massive problems. I don't want us to generalize that to the entire organization or everything they do, however.

simpleWho wrote:

Must it be that the deviant ones force its values over the norms?

Why are you defining the use of certain words 'deviant'? If you can provide a non-circular reason, I'd like to hear it.

simpleWho wrote:

'bad words' serve no purpose other than antagonizing the listener and create what can only be called an 'unpleasant' experience. ...

The purpose of speech is to carry out an act of conversation that benefits both the speaker and the listener by conveying meaningful information, imparting an educational value, or just to build up care, concern, friendship and relations.

And if the purpose of a line of prose it to convey horror, fear, or other unpleasant aspect of reality that it benefits both the speaker and the listener to better understand? Simply because something is unpleasant doesn't make it devoid of meaning.

Obscenity is protected speech as well, regardless of what the supreme court thinks.

The first amendment is intended to protect unpopular speech, political speech, the press, etc, by prohibiting the use of congress as a tool of censorship and revenge on behalf of the popular will, and the supreme court has gotten itself into the business of deciding which people are deserving of that protection purely on the basis of what they've said and what other people think about it. No really, that's the miller test for obscenity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

Phrases like "community standards" and "patently offensive" have essentially rendered the first amendment devoid of meaning, if those things aren't protected simply because the public doesn't like them, nothing else is either. The entire thing is an illusion that only persists until the supreme court decides to create another exception.

Hmm. Looking at the first Amendment, obscene language does not appear to be protected. The amendment was intended to ensure you could speak out against government without reprisals...correct? Having said that, I'm with the other posters that if shows have content I find objectionable, I just don't watch, and we monitor what our kids watch as well. I don't understand the fascination with including foul language in public media.

What kind of twisted reading of the First Amendment makes you think that it doesn't cover words like 'fuck?' It covers pornography, for Christ's sake. Even the old backwards SCOTUS ruling was limited to publicly accessible broadcasts at hours where children would likely be home. Thus, cable and satellite TV aren't covered, and broadcast had a 'safe harbor' period in which those rules are not applicable.

A historical view of the first amendment clearly allows for limitations on speech. The phrase of import is "or abridging the freedom of speech". Note the article "the" in their. It was well understood that "the freedom of speech" was not absolute. You were not free to libel or slander someone, you were not free to stand outside someone's window all night long and shout, you were not free to lie in a court of law. You were simply not free to say anything, anytime, anywhere. The main point was to make it clear that the government had no power to restrain speech through seditious libel laws and such.

A historical view of the first amendment clearly allows for limitations on speech. The phrase of import is "or abridging the freedom of speech". Note the article "the" in their. It was well understood that "the freedom of speech" was not absolute. You were not free to libel or slander someone, you were not free to stand outside someone's window all night long and shout, you were not free to lie in a court of law. You were simply not free to say anything, anytime, anywhere. The main point was to make it clear that the government had no power to restrain speech through seditious libel laws and such.

You've narrowed it down more than is reasonable, but essentially you aren't entitled to wrap yourself in the first amendment while hurting other people, physically or otherwise.

A historical view of the first amendment clearly allows for limitations on speech. The phrase of import is "or abridging the freedom of speech". Note the article "the" in their. It was well understood that "the freedom of speech" was not absolute. You were not free to libel or slander someone, you were not free to stand outside someone's window all night long and shout, you were not free to lie in a court of law. You were simply not free to say anything, anytime, anywhere. The main point was to make it clear that the government had no power to restrain speech through seditious libel laws and such.

Yes, freedom of speech is not absolute, but the limitations are supposed to be very small and very carefully carved out. There is absolutely no reason to stop swearing on TV. Saying these words on TV does not harm children, it does not mislead somebody, and it causes no actual harm.

What parents don't want kids exposed to varies greatly from parent to parent, and claims that it is 'always' are just unfounded, given the existence of safe harbors. I went to school with someone whose parents didn't let them watch Captain Planet because it espoused a 'new age' philosophy that 'the power is yours.' No fucking joke.

So true. I recall the parents groups that wanted Harry Potter books banned from public school libraries because they dealt with witchcraft. I honestly wonder about the parents that have that South Park silly nanny philosophy from the South Park movie. Why, any content is alright as long as there's no nudity or sex. It's perfectly alright for little Timmy to watch graphic autopsies, dismemberment and other murders on CSI, so long as nobody says fuck or shit. Heaven forbid. Content is a whole, not just the language.

Is anyone else amused by the bleeps? I find them quite humorous myself, moreso than the actual words.

I truly respect those that want to keep crude language and behavior out of their lives. However, please ask yourself why certain words are swear words and why they have more power than normal language. Fuck, for instance at it's core means to have sex. Somehow this has a greater "weight" than the word shit which means excrement. What about screw or poop? They mean the same thing and if used at a moment of heightened emotions can be elevated to swears.

By taking the power away from the words, they become less taboo.

Nudity also makes no sense to censor IMHO, but for some reason that's more objectionable than seeing a person "chemically disincorporated". In the pilot episode of the show I am referencing they took great pains to mosiac out a woman's nipples, but 3 episodes later we have one of the most horrific things I have ever seen on TV. (I would defend the gore in this case as it deeply effects one of the main characters in the show and therefore the plot - but this level of shock isn't always necessary). Why are we so hung up about the naked human form?

At the end of the day, our youth need to be raised. That means taking the good with the bad when they are ready for it. It's their parents decision what time is appropriate for them and no one elses, especially not the FCC.

A historical view of the first amendment clearly allows for limitations on speech. The phrase of import is "or abridging the freedom of speech". Note the article "the" in their. It was well understood that "the freedom of speech" was not absolute. You were not free to libel or slander someone, you were not free to stand outside someone's window all night long and shout, you were not free to lie in a court of law. You were simply not free to say anything, anytime, anywhere. The main point was to make it clear that the government had no power to restrain speech through seditious libel laws and such.

You've narrowed it down more than is reasonable, but essentially you aren't entitled to wrap yourself in the first amendment while hurting other people, physically or otherwise.

It is more than that. You are not for instance free to communicate to someone who does not wish to be spoken to in a private space. You are not free to communicate with a minor over the objections of the guardian.

I think it would interesting to discuss how replacing the current governance scheme defined by the FCC with a self-governed scheme would work. If a broadcaster agrees that for a particular timeslot and program they will conform to G programming but they allow 'fuck' to let fly they should be fined by the FCC. This provides parents a guide to what their children will be viewing in advance and gives the contract between viewer and broadcaster teeth if they fail to comply.

I can also understand how a subset of our populace will be dissatisfied with that given that the airwaves are a public commodity and broadcasters, in being granted a limited monopoly, have a responsibility to the public good. There is enough children's programming out there (and enough demand) that I don't think that a policy change would have an immediate adverse effect. I also don't think that football interviews will suddenly be filled with expletives.

A historical view of the first amendment clearly allows for limitations on speech. The phrase of import is "or abridging the freedom of speech". Note the article "the" in their. It was well understood that "the freedom of speech" was not absolute. You were not free to libel or slander someone, you were not free to stand outside someone's window all night long and shout, you were not free to lie in a court of law. You were simply not free to say anything, anytime, anywhere. The main point was to make it clear that the government had no power to restrain speech through seditious libel laws and such.

Yes, freedom of speech is not absolute, but the limitations are supposed to be very small and very carefully carved out. There is absolutely no reason to stop swearing on TV. Saying these words on TV does not harm children, it does not mislead somebody, and it causes no actual harm.

I am not advocating for restricting it on TV, but not due to 1st Amendment concerns, more because I think it unwieldy. I do favor full prior disclosure so parents / others know what they are in for.

I disagree that the exceptions were supposed to be small and carefully carved out. The amendment was intended to prevent the federal government, and only the federal government from shutting down speech critical of it, and that was pretty much its only point. It was never intended to protect public nudity (or any other general offense against the then public morality) under the guise of freedom of expression, a phrase found nowhere therein. Certainly state governments restricted such expressions on a regular basis.

And I will immediately stop watching any show that starts using obscenities. I don't enjoy hearing them on TV shows, and I don't use them in everyday life, because they are not necessary. They are a perfect example of crude and ignorant behavior, although I am sure several people will immediately respond violently to me justifying their right to act like crude and ignorant morons. Go for it. I don't, and won't, have any respect for you, so I won't demean myself by responding to you.

How are certain words that you arbitrarily find "bad" less educated than others? If two Nobel laureates are discussing quantum mechanics and say their supercollider is fucked up, does that make them stupid?? But someone talking about Jersey shore saying piddle and poop are obviously well educated high-society?

I never understood why use of certain words supposedly lower you to the some underclass. What's so hard about actually listening to what people actually say, not just the words they use? ...think I answered my own question there..

A historical view of the first amendment clearly allows for limitations on speech. The phrase of import is "or abridging the freedom of speech". Note the article "the" in their. It was well understood that "the freedom of speech" was not absolute. You were not free to libel or slander someone, you were not free to stand outside someone's window all night long and shout, you were not free to lie in a court of law. You were simply not free to say anything, anytime, anywhere. The main point was to make it clear that the government had no power to restrain speech through seditious libel laws and such.

You've narrowed it down more than is reasonable, but essentially you aren't entitled to wrap yourself in the first amendment while hurting other people, physically or otherwise.

It is more than that. You are not for instance free to communicate to someone who does not wish to be spoken to in a private space. You are not free to communicate with a minor over the objections of the guardian.

Neither of those are speech issues, former is harassment and the latter is some kind of stalking (which the parent gets to decide).

I am not advocating for restricting it on TV, but not due to 1st Amendment concerns, more because I think it unwieldy. I do favor full prior disclosure so parents / others know what they are in for.

I disagree that the exceptions were supposed to be small and carefully carved out. The amendment was intended to prevent the federal government, and only the federal government from shutting down speech critical of it, and that was pretty much its only point. It was never intended to protect public nudity (or any other general offense against the then public morality) under the guise of freedom of expression, a phrase found nowhere therein. Certainly state governments restricted such expressions on a regular basis.

Political speech is the most vital of speech, but there is far more to the first amendment than that.

I am not advocating for restricting it on TV, but not due to 1st Amendment concerns, more because I think it unwieldy. I do favor full prior disclosure so parents / others know what they are in for.

I disagree that the exceptions were supposed to be small and carefully carved out. The amendment was intended to prevent the federal government, and only the federal government from shutting down speech critical of it, and that was pretty much its only point. It was never intended to protect public nudity (or any other general offense against the then public morality) under the guise of freedom of expression, a phrase found nowhere therein. Certainly state governments restricted such expressions on a regular basis.

Political speech is the most vital of speech, but there is far more to the first amendment than that.

Yes, but not relating to speech. Can you give me historical examples from the early republic, that is that time when the writers were alive, that would support your argument?

Must it be that the deviant ones force its values over the norms? There are people - and I would like to believe; still in majority - who actually think that obscenities are considered 'bad' language; serve no purpose other than antagonizing the listener and create what can only be called an 'unpleasant' experience. Yet they are made to not only listen to it (pick up any new movie; you can't escape it); they are being ridiculed for not really liking it and for continuing to insist that that other 'x' medium stay free of this un-necessary vile.

The reason why it is hard to escape bad language is that more people find it a positive than a negative. There is a reason why you find bad language in action movies, but not in kids movies. Because people, the consumers, feel that it adds value to the action movie, but it detracts from the kids movie.

There are times when cursing is appropriate and times when it is not.

If this ban is lifted, network TV will end up more like regular cable TV than premium cable TV. There will be occasional swearing. And when it is appropriate (sporting events picking things up on the mic, documentaries, the occasional other show, and likely some late night stuff), swearing will increase. Otherwise, there will be censoring, like most cable companies do because of the advertising issue.

You won't see your local news anchor say "there was a giant fucking explosion at the local power plant today." What you MAY see is that if they show any video of the aftermath of the giant explosion, they may sometimes leave in the bad language to show what it was actually like there.You won't regularly see "fuck" on How I Met Your Mother and the like. There may be a few dropped for shock value at first, but people will object and the advertisers will listen. And you will occasionally see shows try to push the limit, just to see what the reaction is. You may see it show up semi-reguarly on The Late, Late Show, because it's more likely that people won't object to that (as most people up listening to that are not children).

Removing the FCC ban doesn't give those who favor bad language power over what you listen to. Advertisers still have that. It just takes away some of the GOVERNMENT'S power over what you listen to. And it means that if, eventually, we as a society decided that saying "fuck" really isn't that bad...then it will start showing up all the time, as it will not impact sales.

The fact that the only halfway-decent TV shows anymore all reside on the premium channels like Showtime says a lot.

I really don't see how swearing factors into this at all. While there are certainly exceptions, swearing is generally a comedic crutch. If you're actually talented, you probably don't need it to be funny.

First amendment concerns aside, frankly, it's sad that people are so fired up about this. Look, I know it's super cool when you're a teenager or in college, but swearing makes you look low class. Period. Every once in a while when you "hit your thumb with a hammer", sure, but other than that, you're just making yourself look bad. Immersing yourself in content that is full of it will simply make you more likely to engage in a bad habit.

I've got no problem with swearing but I find this extremely offensive. I happen to be "low-class" as was my father and his etc. We're the people that built the house you live in and the roads that you drive on, not to mention either running the cable or erecting the cell towers that you're using to post your message of superiority. These are jobs where you need to have special training to avoid getting your arm torn off by a tractor so forgive me if I don't give a shit if my <i>words</i> are hurting you in some way. I can't imagine how absolutely pointless your life must be if swearing is a topic that gets you riled up but I imagine it involves "using a computer" in a weather controlled "office" for most of the day.

On another note, I'm a parent and I intend to raise my kids to grow up into adults someday. This involves taking them through adult situations and providing them context. If you can't do that for swearing, how exactly do you expect you'll do at explaining sex? If you think that shielding your kids from the world of adults, at any age, will somehow help them later in life you'd better clear out your basement because that's where they'll be staying until they're 35.

You should not rely on the government to raise your children for you; they've been doing that since I was a kid and all we get is dumber, fatter and more violent kids. If you want to cripple your kids by 'protecting' them all their lives, that's up to you but I'd ask you to take the responsibility to do it yourself and not have the government interfere with *EVERYONE'S* lives.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.